Monday morning quarterback

[WebHead]

A long while back, George W Bush told the people of the U.S. that he wanted to protect us from terrorism by waging war on Iraq. He told us that they had weapons of mass destruction and that they would probably use them on us if we didn't act swiftly.

Here are some quotes from our president from March 17th 2003

On why we must invade Iraq:
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated *****ions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
None of these weapons have been found. Thousands have died.

On what the Iraqi people can expect:
"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
The thing Bush doesn't understand is that there is no such thing as Iraq. There are Shiites, Muslims, Kurds, etc. All enemies with one thing in common: Their undivided hatred of the U.S. government. And incidentally, the tryant is gone now. They are now liberated. So when does the "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors" thing start?

On our honor and integrity:
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice."
We have paid the price. Where's the return on my investment? Does Haliburton have it? Do the people in the country we call "Iraq" have it? Where is it? What did the American people get from this war? I don't feel any safer. Do you?

On fear:
"Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences."
Based on what I've seen, the only ones attempting to shift my attention with panic and fear seems to be our right-winged media and our government with their "terror alerts" that always seem to be false alarms. Did you notice he used the word "fear" twice in that paragraph?

You can read the entire speech here. (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_031803.htm)

[Wayward Clam]

On why we must invade Iraq:
"The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated *****ions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."
None of these weapons have been found. Thousands have died.

On what the Iraqi people can expect:
"In a free Iraq, there will be no more wars of aggression against your neighbors, no more poison factories, no more executions of dissidents, no more torture chambers and rape rooms. The tyrant will soon be gone. The day of your liberation is near."
The thing Bush doesn't understand is that there is no such thing as Iraq. There are Shiites, Muslims, Kurds, etc. All enemies with one thing in common: Their undivided hatred of the U.S. government. And incidentally, the tryant is gone now. They are now liberated. So when does the "no more wars of aggression against your neighbors" thing start?

On our honor and integrity:
"Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it. Americans understand the costs of conflict because we have paid them in the past. War has no certainty, except the certainty of sacrifice."
We have paid the price. Where's the return on my investment? Does Haliburton have it? Do the people in the country we call "Iraq" have it? Where is it? What did the American people get from this war? I don't feel any safer. Do you?

On fear:
"Should enemies strike our country, they would be attempting to shift our attention with panic and weaken our morale with fear. In this, they would fail. No act of theirs can alter the course or shake the resolve of this country. We are a peaceful people -- yet we're not a fragile people, and we will not be intimidated by thugs and killers. If our enemies dare to strike us, they and all who have aided them, will face fearful consequences."
Based on what I've seen, the only ones attempting to shift my attention with panic and fear seems to be our right-winged media and our government with their "terror alerts" that always seem to be false alarms. Did you notice he used the word "fear" twice in that paragraph?

You can read the entire speech here. (http://www.bushcountry.org/bush_speeches/president_bush_speech_031803.htm)

Okay, as your vice dude I wanna play devil's advocate. Or maybe I just have a fetish for dressing up in Ya_Know's clothes. :D

But here are some possible weaknesses in your statement that should be addressed:

-One could argue that although WMDs were not found in Iraq, their ability to assist terrorists was dramatically reduced by the war, thus technically "accomplishing" the aim of the first quotation.

-The new Iraq is very violent and unstable... they have been forced to trade a violent despotism for a democracy plagued by volatile terrorism. Is this an improvement or not? It's certainly nowhere near an ideal situation, but many would argue that yes indeed it is better overall, especially in the long run.

-The return on investment quotation/response is the most telling IMHO. I personally do NOT feel any safer than before; in fact I feel LESS safe because it makes Dubya look a little bit more like a powerful dictator who is beyond accountability, and I KNOW he has WMDs at his disposal. I don't even think the majority of Iraqis feel much safer right now, although they might at some point in the future if peace can be maintained.

However, the Republicans who read this are largely NOT going to agree. They are going to say that terrorists have lost an ally, the feared threat of WMDs has been eliminated (doesn't have to be a real threat to make you feel unsafe, does it?) and that the USA has demonstrated to the world in bold capital letters "DON'T F*** WITH US."

-I completely agree with your response to the last paragraph, but again, Repubs reading it are not going to agree with what we believe are the motivations and methods of the people responsible for manipulating the American public. How can all of it be proven? Unfortunately, until and unless someone finds internal documents or a turncoat witness, there will always be those who choose to believe the best of Dubya and his ilk... in fact, history is full of examples of people still supporting the corrupt even AFTER they were proven so.

I guess in short my position is...

You're right. But between weaselling, partisanism, lack of direct and easy to understand proof, and simple human individualism, we can't make everybody believe you.

*sigh*

[WebHead]

- No. A terrorist can still use a WMD if he wanted to. Just specifying that I am wrong is not enough to validate the point.

- I have no problem with Iraq being a democratic place. In fact, I would be ecstatic if they decided to be democratic. What I do have a problem with is us trying to force our ways on other people. Besides,.. true democracy is something that is earned. It is not given to someone that refuses to take it. Also,.. it is not a "new iraq". It's the same exact Iraq less Saddam.

- Right. Why should we (the U.S.) be the only ones on the planet to possess WMD's when we (the U.S.) are the only ones who have ever dropped an atomic bomb on a country?

- We are now looked at as a country of redneck cowboys and we have isolated ourselves from the rest of the world (especially europe).

- I don't want everyone to believe me. I don't want everyone to believe everything they read. I want everyone to look at the big picture, realize, stop nitpicking the little details and understand that this war was a crock and that we (the people of the U.S.) got swindelled out of billions of dollars and American lives by our current government and Haliburton.

[Wayward Clam]

LOL I'm debating my own presidential candidate. :D Oh well, here goes.

Web - No. A terrorist can still use a WMD if he wanted to. Just specifying that I am wrong is not enough to validate the point.

Agreed!

Web - I have no problem with Iraq being a democratic place. In fact, I would be ecstatic if they decided to be democratic. What I do have a problem with is us trying to force our ways on other people. Besides,.. true democracy is something that is earned. It is not given to someone that refuses to take it. Also,.. it is not a "new iraq". It's the same exact Iraq less Saddam.

Almost agreed. There is one other difference; now the US gov't controls the oil there.

Web - Right. Why should we (the U.S.) be the only ones on the planet to possess WMD's when we (the U.S.) are the only ones who have ever dropped an atomic bomb on a country?

Almost agreed. It is commonly accepted that the Hiroshima / Nagasaki bombs were what made Japan decide to surrender instead of fighting a long drawn out campaign in the style of the Nazis... this may be a weird way of looking at it, but the bombs were delivered in an attempt to end what would otherwise have been a long and destructive war between two industrialized and highly populated nations, and they may have actually prevented countless lives from being lost and atrocities committed. It is certainly tragic that the civilian populations of two cities had to suffer, but how many more civilians would have been wiped out had the war gone on for several more "conventional" years?

I agree that there is definitely no rational reason nowadays for anyone to need to use a WMD, but in the historical context of WWII, I am not sure I would support an argument that they were unwarranted then.

Web - We are now looked at as a country of redneck cowboys and we have isolated ourselves from the rest of the world (especially europe).

True dat. Trouble is, I think there is a certain percentage of the USA, and even posters here at WD, who don't mind this at all, and in fact PREFER things this way.

Web - I don't want everyone to believe me. I don't want everyone to believe everything they read. I want everyone to look at the big picture, realize, stop nitpicking the little details and understand that this war was a crock and that we (the people of the U.S.) got swindelled out of billions of dollars and American lives by our current government and Haliburton.

I understand completely. But my point is, you can't FORCE people to realize the truth. Some people LIKE having wool over their eyes and will violently oppose any attempts to remove it.

[WebHead]

Ok,.. nevermind all that for now. Just go vote for the Wrb/Clm ticket and stuff. :D

[jaeger]

The thing Bush doesn't understand is that there is no such thing as Iraq. There are Shiites, Muslims, Kurds, etc. All enemies with one thing in common: Their undivided hatred of the U.S. government.

Nifty. Maybe you will eventually realize that a Shiite is a Muslim and Kurds are extremely loyal the the US. You severely underestimate the strength of Iraqi nationalism as well. The Kurds are really the only group that has any movement for seperatism and even then they lean more towards an autonomous region than an independent state. Can't really blame em for that considering how many atrocities have been committed against em in the region.

[WebHead]

Nifty. Maybe you will eventually realize that a Shiite is a Muslim and Kurds are extremely loyal the the US. You severely underestimate the strength of Iraqi nationalism as well. The Kurds are really the only group that has any movement for seperatism and even then they lean more towards an autonomous region than an independent state. Can't really blame em for that considering how many atrocities have been committed against em in the region.

Perhaps,.. but my point isn't about the 'names' of the different groups that live there,.. it's the fact that there ARE different groups that live there that hate each other.

Can you give me an example of which Iraqi nationalism you are speaking of?

Anyway,.. fine you win, I lose. Debate over. We should just stay there and eventually everything will be much better. I mean,.. if Mom tells us not to put our hand in the cookie jar,.. I'm sure we could find 100 different reasons why we SHOULD be able to put our hand in that cookie jar. She is wrong. We are right. Whatever.

[WebHead]

...Web - We are now looked at as a country of redneck cowboys and we have isolated ourselves from the rest of the world (especially europe).

True dat. Trouble is, I think there is a certain percentage of the USA, and even posters here at WD, who don't mind this at all, and in fact PREFER things this way...

So sad, so true.

[jaeger]

Perhaps,.. but my point isn't about the 'names' of the different groups that live there,.. it's the fact that there ARE different groups that live there that hate each other.

And we all know groups of different people can't coexist.

Can you give me an example of which Iraqi nationalism you are speaking of?

Well, the 1920 revolution against the British would be the birth of it. The strongest evidence of it would be the Iran-Iraq war though. If the groups are more important than the nation, why didn't the majority of Iraqis side with their Shia brothers and sisters in Iran? There was a poll a while ago that asked Iraqi's whether they wanted independent states or Iraq to remain a whole. The only group that had a noticeable percentage for seperatism was the Kurds.

Anyway,.. fine you win, I lose. Debate over. We should just stay there and eventually everything will be much better. I mean,.. if Mom tells us not to put our hand in the cookie jar,.. I'm sure we could find 100 different reasons why we SHOULD be able to put our hand in that cookie jar. She is wrong. We are right. Whatever.

No, we should fix what we broke, rig the table as best we can, and hope the dice roll well. The finishing stroke on the reformation of Iraq will be the majority of American troops withdrawing. Of course we will have a few bases there, and once general security is handed over to Iraqi forces, I doubt we will see many protests against that. American military bases have a habit of being cash cows for their surrounding communities.

[WebHead]

And we all know groups of different people can't coexist.
I never said they couldn't. However, that doesn't make any difference because we (the people of Earth) still have borders, countries, states, fences, etc. The whole world is composed of people living seperately yet coexisting within their own seperate borders. I guess you could say we all coexist on the same planet if you want to ge technical.



Well, the 1920 revolution against the British would be the birth of it. The strongest evidence of it would be the Iran-Iraq war though. If the groups are more important than the nation, why didn't the majority of Iraqis side with their Shia brothers and sisters in Iran? There was a poll a while ago that asked Iraqi's whether they wanted independent states or Iraq to remain a whole. The only group that had a noticeable percentage for seperatism was the Kurds.
I guess I'm trying to understand what you are trying to explain. Based on what you are saying, and based on some very vague historical points you have expressed,.. you feel that all the people of Iraq have a desire to live together peacefully. And you think this way even based on what you know of current events in Iraq?



No, we should fix what we broke, rig the table as best we can, and hope the dice roll well. The finishing stroke on the reformation of Iraq will be the majority of American troops withdrawing. Of course we will have a few bases there, and once general security is handed over to Iraqi forces, I doubt we will see many protests against that. American military bases have a habit of being cash cows for their surrounding communities.
Fix what we broke. Rig the table. I'm sorry,.. but what exactly have "we" broken? The entire middle east has been a big mess for a very long time. If the table is broken, then it's up to them to fix it. Not us. WE ARE OVER THERE TO CONTROL OIL. THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR US BEING THERE. WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP AND SEE THIS? WE WANT TO CONTROL OIL SO WE CAN CONTROL THE WORLDS ECONOMY TO MEET OUR BEST INTERESTS. We don't care about any broken tables. We want oil. Simple. Period. If you think otherwise, then you are naive.

[jaeger]

So people can coexist but can't coexist? Nice. In my opinion, the Kurds and Shia, who make up over 75% of the population can readily cooperate in governing Iraq. Many of the Sunni may be able to cooperate and it is important that we prevent a backlash against them participating in the new government. We don't want to repeat the Brit's mistake. The leftover feyadeen, the al qaeda, the loonies that just want to go declare jihad against those evil Americans are not going to be able to participate in the new Iraqi government, and the best way to deal with this is to have secure elections as soon as possible while handing over day to day security to Iraqi forces. Any guesses on what the US is doing right now?

You asked for historical reference to Iraqi nationalism and I provided it. You dismiss it as vague. The Iran-Iraq conflict is very important when looking at the strength of Iraq as a nation. A majority Shia nation dominated by the Sunni fought effectively against a Shia nation. If the internal groups were more important than the nation, Iraq would have lost. Hell, if you want to get down to details, the tribalism in Iraq will be more difficult to deal with than any Shia/Sunni differences, but I doubt you've read much about tribalism in Iraq.

I won't bother even trying to debunk the oil control conspiracy theory. You know, if we did fight this war to hijack Iraqi oil, we are doing a real ****ty job of hijacking it. Oil prices are up and headed higher, Iraqi production is down and heading lower. Yet this same arguement just keeps getting bleated all day long. Hell, if all we wanted was more oil at lower prices, we could have done it very easily by accepting Russian and French proposals to remove the sanctions.

[confus-ed]

Fix what we broke. Rig the table. I'm sorry,.. but what exactly have "we" broken? The entire middle east has been a big mess for a very long time. If the table is broken, then it's up to them to fix it. Not us. WE ARE OVER THERE TO CONTROL OIL. THAT IS THE SOLE PURPOSE FOR US BEING THERE. WHEN ARE PEOPLE GOING TO WAKE UP AND SEE THIS? WE WANT TO CONTROL OIL SO WE CAN CONTROL THE WORLDS ECONOMY TO MEET OUR BEST INTERESTS. We don't care about any broken tables. We want oil. Simple. Period. If you think otherwise, then you are naive.

Crickey Ya_know is webby ... oh hang on a minute, that's the truth, Ya_know sticks with George & all that save the world cobblers !

Any guesses on what the US is doing right now?

Backpeddling like hell ? & wondering how to avoid another vietnam ?

Btw Jaeger, its not about oil prices, its about control of current supplies, about sorting out the perceived opec stranglehold, as for planning & exit plans & elections .... (excuse me a moment while I fall about laughing ! :D) - George never got that far did he ?, he expected everyone to be so happy to see the Americans instead of Saddam he thought that bit would be really easy, that was always gonna be the problem -'the after'- which was why everyone else was more reticent, being as informed as webby :eek2:

Troops (whether 'ours' of the UNs) will be in Iraq for a long time, we've opened up a can of worms ..

[jaeger]

If all we wanted was to sort out OPEC, we could just park a few aircraft carriers of a few member's coasts and let the strongarm bit do it's stuff. No lives lost, no abnormal costs incurred.

We do have our own interests in mind, no doubt about that. We want a stable friend in the region and forward bases. We want proof to give everyday Arabs that the western way of life isn't all that evil. Remove Saddam, build a democracy (modeling it after Canada's seems to be a good idea), then roll in the Wal-marts and Disneylands. How effective do you think a moderate Iraq with a large middle class would be in stopping terrorism in the middle east? It might take a generation, but it also might work. Any reasonable solution is going to take at least a generation.

I keep wondering where this idea that Iraq was going to be easy came from? I was betting 5 years with 2 years before self-rule and 3 before elections. I was more than a bit off on the first benchmark and it looks like I will be off on the second. I remember lots of talk about long hard struggles. I remember lots of warnings that Iraq would not be bloodless or quick. I think a lot of the criticisms about the Bush administrations handling of post-Saddam Iraq has a lot more to do with those individuals ideas of an acceptable war than anything Bush has done.

[WebHead]

I am about to go home now. I'll post my comments when I get home.

[WebHead]

So people can coexist but can't coexist? Nice. In my opinion, the Kurds and Shia, who make up over 75% of the population can readily cooperate in governing Iraq. Many of the Sunni may be able to cooperate and it is important that we prevent a backlash against them participating in the new government. We don't want to repeat the Brit's mistake. The leftover feyadeen, the al qaeda, the loonies that just want to go declare jihad against those evil Americans are not going to be able to participate in the new Iraqi government, and the best way to deal with this is to have secure elections as soon as possible while handing over day to day security to Iraqi forces. Any guesses on what the US is doing right now?

You asked for historical reference to Iraqi nationalism and I provided it. You dismiss it as vague. The Iran-Iraq conflict is very important when looking at the strength of Iraq as a nation. A majority Shia nation dominated by the Sunni fought effectively against a Shia nation. If the internal groups were more important than the nation, Iraq would have lost. Hell, if you want to get down to details, the tribalism in Iraq will be more difficult to deal with than any Shia/Sunni differences, but I doubt you've read much about tribalism in Iraq.

I won't bother even trying to debunk the oil control conspiracy theory. You know, if we did fight this war to hijack Iraqi oil, we are doing a real ****ty job of hijacking it. Oil prices are up and headed higher, Iraqi production is down and heading lower. Yet this same arguement just keeps getting bleated all day long. Hell, if all we wanted was more oil at lower prices, we could have done it very easily by accepting Russian and French proposals to remove the sanctions.

Been watching all the talking heads on Fox News lately I see.

[WebHead]

...Backpeddling like hell ? & wondering how to avoid another vietnam ?...

Precisely! Thank you.

[WebHead]

If all we wanted was to sort out OPEC, we could just park a few aircraft carriers of a few member's coasts and let the strongarm bit do it's stuff. No lives lost, no abnormal costs incurred.
If it is that easy, then why not write President Bush a letter explaining your idea and lets get this going.

We do have our own interests in mind, no doubt about that. We want a stable friend in the region and forward bases. We want proof to give everyday Arabs that the western way of life isn't all that evil. Remove Saddam, build a democracy (modeling it after Canada's seems to be a good idea), then roll in the Wal-marts and Disneylands. How effective do you think a moderate Iraq with a large middle class would be in stopping terrorism in the middle east? It might take a generation, but it also might work. Any reasonable solution is going to take at least a generation.
A reasonable solution is to let them figure it out for themselves. People don't like to be told what to do no matter how wrong or right the words are.

I keep wondering where this idea that Iraq was going to be easy came from? I was betting 5 years with 2 years before self-rule and 3 before elections. I was more than a bit off on the first benchmark and it looks like I will be off on the second. I remember lots of talk about long hard struggles. I remember lots of warnings that Iraq would not be bloodless or quick. I think a lot of the criticisms about the Bush administrations handling of post-Saddam Iraq has a lot more to do with those individuals ideas of an acceptable war than anything Bush has done.
I don't know of anyone that thought an Iraq war would be easy. Thats main reason the UN, most of the USA and most of the world DIDN'T WANT THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. War is supposed to be used as a LAST RESORT and not to FORCE PEOPLE TO OBEY YOUR WILL

[TripleRLtd]

Perhaps,.. but my point isn't about the 'names' of the different groups that live there,.. it's the fact that there ARE different groups that live there that hate each other.

Can you give me an example of which Iraqi nationalism you are speaking of?

Well, wrbby, it would definitely help your debating effort if you could get facts straight! You go spouting off rhetoric, and you don't even know what you are talking about. Little advice here: do at least "some" research before you post a flame at jaeger!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
BTW, I see that he gave you a perfectly valid "example" and YOU summarily dismissed it and chose a new tact! Cool, though! That, in fact does reveal much!
A reasonable solution is to let them figure it out for themselves. People don't like to be told what to do no matter how wrong or right the words are. Of course they don't, but this was not about "people"! It was about an outlaw regime headed by Saddam, who wasn't even a "popular" leader, but was a despot!
I don't know of anyone that thought an Iraq war would be easy. Thats main reason the UN, most of the USA and most of the world DIDN'T WANT THE WAR IN THE FIRST PLACE. War is supposed to be used as a LAST RESORT and not to FORCE PEOPLE TO OBEY YOUR WILL The UN, the US, and most of the world? I think not! So, now you are France? With her own duplicitous reasons for nixing the UN resolution and resolve? Well, that explains alot.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif A last resort? Is that what war is supposed to be for? In whose book? There is a difference between proactive and reactive. If the whole west had been more PROactive towards the moves by Hitler, the whole history of the 20th century would be rewritten.

[WebHead]

Well, wrbby, it would definitely help your debating effort if you could get facts straight! You go spouting off rhetoric, and you don't even know what you are talking about. Little advice here: do at least "some" research before you post a flame at jaeger!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/wink.gif
BTW, I see that he gave you a perfectly valid "example" and YOU summarily dismissed it and chose a new tact! Cool, though! That, in fact does reveal much!
Of course they don't, but this was not about "people"! It was about an outlaw regime headed by Saddam, who wasn't even a "popular" leader, but was a despot!
The UN, the US, and most of the world? I think not! So, now you are France? With her own duplicitous reasons for nixing the UN resolution and resolve? Well, that explains alot.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif A last resort? Is that what war is supposed to be for? In whose book? There is a difference between proactive and reactive. If the whole west had been more PROactive towards the moves by Hitler, the whole history of the 20th century would be rewritten.

Brilliant :rolleyes:

[TripleRLtd]

Good comeback. I am really impressed! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[WebHead]

Good comeback. I am really impressed! http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

Any chance of you actually posting something about the actual topic rather than following me around from thread to thread making judgements of others?

[TripleRLtd]

Any chance of you actually posting something about the actual topic rather than following me around from thread to thread making judgements of others?Feeling paranoid lately wrbby? Want to borrow my "helmet"?
I answered you already here:http://forums.windrivers.com/showpost.php?p=505394&postcount=18
Perhaps some of the words were too "big"?

[WebHead]

Feeling paranoid lately wrbby? Want to borrow my "helmet"?
I answered you already here:http://forums.windrivers.com/showpost.php?p=505394&postcount=18
Perhaps some of the words were too "big"?

If you had posted it in english then I might've replied. I can't understand what the hell your jabbering on about half the time.

[Cleetus]

If you had posted it in english then I might've replied. I can't understand what the hell your jabbering on about half the time.
I just get confused cause it's full of odd questions that never really go anywhere

[WebHead]

Want to borrow my "helmet"?

Like this one Cleetus?

[TripleRLtd]

If you had posted it in english then I might've replied. I can't understand what the hell your jabbering on about half the time. Have you ever learned to READ english? Increase your vocuabulary? I can find some links for lessons if you'd like!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

[WebHead]

Have you ever learned to READ english? Increase your vocuabulary? I can find some links for lessons if you'd like!http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I'll learn how to read english once you learn now to write it. Deal?
Wich vocuabulary werds wud you lik me to lern ferst?

[TripleRLtd]

These:
http://forums.windrivers.com/showpost.php?p=505394&postcount=18
The ones that you seemingly don't understand.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Hey, I answered you, the least you could do is answer as well, and NOT plead: no comprende!!!

[WebHead]

Ask and ye shall receive:

Well, wrbby, it would definitely help your debating effort if you could get facts straight!
Which: factS
Do..
I
NoT, HAVE *straight* :drink:

You go spouting off rhetoric, and you don't even know what you are talking about.
Which: rhetorics
Do..
I
[spout] :thumbs:

Little advice here: do at least "some" research before you post a flame at jaeger!
The TOPIC: are are you afriad or *paranoid* vocabularirily
Is
NOT BUTT
About *HISTORY*
IT's about: Bushs (Speech) :eek2:

BTW, I see that he gave you a perfectly valid "example" and YOU summarily dismissed it and chose a new tact!
A tact? Which one did I choose?

Cool, though! That, in fact does reveal much!
Great. So what exactly does it reveal?

Of course they don't, but this was not about "people"! It was about an outlaw regime headed by Saddam, who wasn't even a "popular" leader, but was a despot!
It's not about the people?

The UN, the US, and most of the world? I think not!
Then how come we are the only ones fighting it (well Great Britain too of course, but still..)

So, now you are France?
No. I am WebHead.

With her own duplicitous reasons for nixing the UN resolution and resolve?
What were the reasons?

Well, that explains alot.
What does that explain?

A last resort?
So your ok with people dying when there might've been another choice?

Is that what war is supposed to be for?
Based on what I know, war is a method used by a country to defend itself from an imminent attack. What would your use for it be?

In whose book?
If it's a book you seek, "The Art of War" tells you a little bit about it.

There is a difference between proactive and reactive.
Oh yeah? Great observation.

If the whole west had been more PROactive towards the moves by Hitler, the whole history of the 20th century would be rewritten.
Ok,.. so in what way would it have been rewritten? What would've happened?

Well after going through this line by line and answering RRR as he begged me to do,.. I have a few thoughts.
1> He asks many open ended questions and offers no specifics as to what he is trying to figure out.
2> He makes open ended judgements based on opinions spoken.
3> His style of posting is very difficult to do. I gave up on it after like my second or third reply above.

[WebHead]

These:
http://forums.windrivers.com/showpost.php?p=505394&postcount=18
The ones that you seemingly don't understand.http://forums.windrivers.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif
Hey, I answered you, the least you could do is answer as well, and NOT plead: no comprende!!!

Done

[Cleetus]

Nice jorb

[King Grover]

Vote Bush!

[Ya_know]

Vote Bush!

Additionally, Vote Ya_know for Politicos!